PRIYA RAJASEKHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
TCA/235/2019HC Madras09 April 2019Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice C.V. KARTHIKEYAN4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the ITAT had indeed granted partial relief under Section 10A for invoices raised prior to 22.11.2010, the date the Letter of Approval expired. However, the ITAT's operative order dismissed the assessee's appeal entirely, creating a conflict. The High Court had previously directed the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh appeal effect order consistent with the ITAT's findings. The Revenue confirmed that such an order was passed on 31.03.2019, granting the partial relief under Section 10A for exports made before 22.11.2010. Consequently, the High Court held that the appeal filed by the assessee had become infructuous. The Court disposed of the appeal without answering the questions of law raised, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Smt. Priya Rajasekhar, proprietor of M/s. Rithwik Softex, filed an appeal before the High Court of Madras against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT's order, dated 13.10.2017, had granted partial relief to the assessee under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for invoices raised prior to 22.11.2010, when her Letter of Approval expired without renewal. However, the ITAT's operative portion dismissed the assessee's appeal entirely, leading to a conflict. The Assessing Authority subsequently issued a demand notice for Rs. 13,49,510/-. The High Court, on 20.03.2019, directed the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh appeal effect order in consonance with the ITAT's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal in its entirety despite granting partial relief under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in its findings. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the ITAT's order was contradictory, as it acknowledged partial relief but dismissed the appeal, leading to the denial of the entire Section 10A exemption and a subsequent demand notice. The assessee relied on the ITAT's finding that partial relief was due. Revenue's contention: The Revenue submitted that an appeal effect order had been passed on 31.03.2019, granting the partial relief to the assessee under Section 10A for exports made prior to 22.11.2010, aligning with the ITAT's order. This meant the assessee was entitled to relief only to the extent of exports made before the expiry of the approval.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10A,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Judgt. dt. 9.4.19 in T.C.A.235/2019 Priya Rajasekar v. ITO 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 9.4.2019 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN Tax Case Appeal No.235 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.6822 of 2019 Smt.Priya Rajasekhar Prop. M/s.Rithwik Softex, No.54, Beach Road, Kalakshetra Colony, Besant Nagar, Chennai-90. (PAN: AHXPP4655L) Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Business Ward IV(3), Chennai-34. Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 13.10.2017 made in ITA No.1617/Mds/2016. For Appellant : Mr.Palani Selvaraj For Respondent : Ms.K.G.Usha Rani

Standing Counsel JUDGMENT (Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J) In the present Appeal filed by the Assessee, we had passed the following order on 20th March 2019:- "After hearing the learned counsels at some length, we find that in the order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 9.4.19 in T.C.A.235/2019 Priya Rajasekar v. ITO 2/4 Tribunal on 13.10.2017, the learned Tribunal had, in fact, given a partial relief to the appellant-assessee under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act,1961, of the exemption on the three invoices raised prior to 22.11.2010, on which date, the Letter of Approval given by the competent authority concerned expired and the appellant-assessee, admittedly, did not go for renewal of the same. 2. It appears that despite giving the said partial relief to the assesee in Paragraph 6 in the operative portion, the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee in entirety and thereafter dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition also. Consequently, the entire relief under Section 10A of the Act had been denied to the assessee while passing the impugned effect order and vide Demand Notice, dated 21.02.2019, of Rs.13,49,510/-, which is, apparently, in conflict with the finding given by the learned Tribunal. 3. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Authority to pass fresh appeal effect order in consonance with the order passed by the learned Tribunal, dated 13.10.2017, and remain present http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 9.4.19 in T.C.A.235/2019 Priya Rajasekar v. ITO 3/4 before this Court along with a copy of the said order on the next date of hearing on 02.04.2019. 4. List the matter on 02.04.2019." 2. Learned Counsel for the Revenue has submitted that a copy of the Appeal effect order passed on 31.3.2019 in pursuance of the aforesaid order granting partial relief to the Assessee under Section lOA of the Act on the Exports made prior to 22.11.2010 when the approval in favour of the Assessse expired and no renewal was made by STPI in favour of the Assessee. The Assessee was entitled to partial relief under Section l0A of the Act only to the extent of Exports made prior to 22.11.2010 which, now, stands granted by the Assessing Authority on the basis of the order passed by the learned Tribunal on 13.10.2017. 3. Accordingly, this Appeal filed by the Assessee has become infructuous and it is disposed of without answering the questions of law raised. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (V.K.,J.) (C.V.K.,J.) 9.4.2019 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No ssk. To 1. The Income Tax Officer, Business Ward IV(3), Chennai-34. 2. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 9.4.19 in T.C.A.235/2019 Priya Rajasekar v. ITO 4/4 DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J. and. C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J. ssk. TCA No.235 of 2019 9.4.2019. http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 10A

All 2,147 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →